Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
Nov 18, 2012 3:30am PST
the parts of the plan in front of us. i think the plan is strong. i think mr. teague is doing a phenomenal job of carrying it forward for someone who worked on it before and i feel really good about how the department is handling it, and i would hope that we can spread our attention far and wide enough to look at the whole piece. >> if that's all commissioners we can conclude that item and move on to item 13. 340 fremont street under planning code sections for the theoriesation of change in conditions of approval. be presented by cory teague. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. cory teague staff. this is a request for extension for 340 fremont street which you heard informational update earlier today. the planning commission approved this project in june 2006 to demolish the existing buildings and develop 400-foot tall building, 290,000 square feet and 332 dwelling units and parking spaces. no changes are proposed to the original project as it was originally approved other than the erks terior design changes and other minor alterations that were presented to you
Nov 20, 2012 3:30am PST
and developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned 340 fremont is approved residential project consisting of 348 apartments and 269 parking spaces and code complying 400-foot tower. there is no change in ownership. the same sponsor remains in place and we look forward to going forward with construction next year and we our 2005 site ap was supplemented in august and provide the documents for construction. we demonstrate our commitment to the plan and we look forward to a groundbreaking next year. the rincon plan adopted in 2006 will transform the area into a mix use downtown neighborhood with significant housing presence and provide range of services and amenities that support urban living and set the stage for rincon hill to be home to 10,000 resident s. the plan shows why it's a high priority site and containing large parcels that could accommodate significant high density housing. another factor is the proximity to transit and a neighborhood within five minutes of the downtown financial district and access to public and regional transit and finally major changes in t
Nov 29, 2012 12:30pm PST
that it's duly and properly attended to and discussed. number two, i would ask mr. teague to briefly restate the specifics of the v alternative. to my recollection, the commission supported the office alternative. i have an image here. if you will briefly, just in one or two words, summarize, it would be helpful that we are all on the same page on that. >> we're going to pull this up for the 3v option, which is essentially, again, just to remind everybody, right now it's proposed that harrison street would be the dividing line for where the sally district ends and where the western soma mug begins. the sally permits new nighttime entertainment uses but does not permit new office or residential. and the wmeg does allow new residential. this option would inis ited of keeping the 11th street corridor on that block, wmeg or extending the sally up that block, it would introduce the wmuo district onto that block, which is the western soma mixed use office drifted. district. and that district does allow for nighttime enter tatectionverctiontion, does obviously allow for office. but it does
Nov 16, 2012 8:30pm PST
collectively are and continue to be the original project sponsor developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned we are supporting now an informational presentation of the new design for 340 fremont street. our goals and reasons for electing to redesign a fully approved, fully compliant residential tower were three. the first one was an esthetic visual exterior enhancement or upgrade for the absence of doubt this is not the vex exercise to the contrary. it's attempt to bring a building that we thought was good to very good in terms of architectural design. the second reason since seven years passed since our original design we under took a significant effort in the under the hood areas of the building, primarily redesigning the structural system to be compliant with a more reason structural high rise code and practice and the third is redesigning each 348 residential units. just a small note on architecture. we conducted a national search for our architectural firm. we have a strong hire local bias but we have a strong need and desire to get the highest level of expertise avail
Nov 23, 2012 9:30pm PST
good job of repeating what mr. teague has properly presented. >> one final paragraph. >> okay. >> the proposal before you is the best effort of the entire community to balance entertainment with all the other competing interest that go into making a complete neighborhood and that works for everybody. thank you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all your effort on this. >> thank you. >> >> thank you jim and hopefully we have a good understanding of the entertainment issues and the scenarios that are available for consideration. can i get the overhead again? so to pivot a little bit away from controls and zoning entertainment and talk a little bit about implementation in terms of impact fees that maybe generate and what they maybe spent on. you have the implementation document in your packet. i put out one table that concap laits the major components there and the projects call out in the plan, some rough calculations of the projected costs and comparing that to the amount of revenues as projected to be created within the planned area based on the growth projections, and before i get
Nov 2, 2012 7:00pm PDT
or not? >> may i request mr. sanchez? >> yes, because i don't know what the certificate of authority is. >> i'm assume teagues the conditional use authorization. maybe i didn't track this completely. was it the motion that was made at the commission that included 1-12, but then somehow 8-[#12k-/], so there is a record showing that shows conditions were approved by the commissioner at that particular meeting? >> yes. scott sanchez, planning department. so the standard procedure at the conditional use hearings is that the week before the hearing, staff prepares a case report with a draft motion. and then in this case, we would have be actually drafting conditions 1-7, forwarded that to the planning commission. at the hearing, the commission accepted the draft motion with the additional findings, 8-12. however, when staff finalized that motion and gave it the motion number and considered that the final action of the planning commission, they failed it include those additional conditions. >> if i went back to the minutes. >> the planning commission adopted the motion with those additiona
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)